Welcome
My name is Maja D'Hondt.
For almost 20 years I have been advising companies and other institutions, large or small, on challenges related to software projects.
My speciality is translating technical risks of software and software projects for executives, board members and legal counsel, in matters of improvement, acquisition, negotiation and litigation.
The starting point is a pragmatic software audit I perform together with project members, in order to uncover the risks in an objective way based on technical facts.
Services
Hello
For 25 years I have been taking the soft out of software using tools for collecting technical facts about software and software projects.
After a brief academic career that started with a PhD in Belgium and ended with research positions in France (INRIA) and The Netherlands (CWI), I worked at Imec as lead of an R&D software team. Additionally, I have been teaching software courses at VUB and ULB as a guest professor (2005-2018).
My first involvement in a court case related to a software project occurred at that time (2005), as well as my first software audit and improvement track for a company. More than 12 years ago I left Imec and decided to pursue these activities as a full-time independent professional. This includes a stint at the Software Improvement Group, where I was able to hone my consulting skills thanks to the many wonderful professionals working there.
I have collaborated with companies and other institutions on more than 100 software projects. All aspects of software projects such as people, processes, technologies are in my scope, including intellectual property rights, open source licenses and information security. I am fluent in Dutch and English, and proficient in French.
Clients
Not included are clients with ongoing negotiations or litigations,
nor companies that I worked with under the umbrella of the Software Improvement Group.
Contact me if you need more references.
Process
The core of my process is the software and software project audit, whether the challenges matter to improvement, conflicts or a due diligence. Before and during the audit, strategic and legal elements specific to the business and the situation are taken into account.
Usually a large amount of technical findings result from the audit. These are distilled to a short list of major risks, based on the business, strategic and legal priorities.
Depending on the situation or the client's wishes, improvements are suggested in the form of a roadmap, and/or a report is delivered for the decision makers. The roadmap, which is technical and actionable, can include cost and timing estimates. The report is presented to C-level persons or members of the board, allowing decisions to be made on the way forward, investments, team changes, and so on.
In a litigation scenario, the report is written for the judge and legal counsel. An improvement roadmap is usually no longer relevant in this case. Instead, estimates concerning damages are often required.
The process can stop here. However, in an improvement track, the roadmap is usually executed. This requires some form of objective follow-up, which can be as intensive as necessary. In parallel to the technical improvement track, the decision-makers may wish to be updated on progress periodically as well.